• Cameraderie, a friendly photography forum, join now for free!
  • Site maintenance will be done tonight, Friday Feb 14, at about 9PM Eastern. It should only take about 15 minutes. 💻

Sony Cheapish sony telephoto zoom (80-300mm)

hazwing

Regular
There's lots of 40-150 range kit zooms in m43 world that are cheap and decent. Just wondering if there is anything similar in the sony fe system? Preferably light and smallish
 
Thanks, I'll have a look at the tamron lens. I guess this is one area that m43 is spoilt for options.
There are far more lens options in the Sony ecosystem than any other, barre none. What you won’t get is small and light since You mention FE.

Tamron also has a 28-300/4-7.1. I shoot the 50-400/4.5-6.3 quite a bit. There is also a new Tamron 50-300/4.5-6.3 if the 50-400 is too large.

There is also a Sony 70-300/4.5-5.6 available, as well as a 24-240/3.5-6.3.

There’s a rumor that Sony intends to upgrade the 24-240 with a 24-200/2.8-4.5.
 
Which camera? Another option is to get an adapter and shoot Minolta/Sony A-mount lenses.
sony a7c

My plan is to take the a7c on my next trip to japan. So far I only have the 28-60mm and 35 1.8. Should be winter time and snowy scenery, and thought a telephoto would be useful to capture more details (where a wide angle might just be lots of white snow.) I'm not a huge telephoto guy, so don't want to spend too much, and don't want anything too heavy for travel. I could also bring my m43 gear, but didn't want to bring a whole second system.
 
The Tamron 28-200 would work, but my first choice would be the Tamron 50-300. It’s reasonably sized and doesn’t weigh a lot for a FF lens. You can check them out size-wise on compact camera meter. Unfortunately, finding something as cost-effective as one of the cheap M-4/3 14-XXX is going to be a challenge.

Assuming this is the first A7c, and not the A7c II? You could use an APS-C lens if you’d be satisfied with something around 10MP files. An APS-C would be smaller and less expensive.
 
I second the Tamron 28-200 if you can stomach the size. For a standard zoom that lens is very good, and for a superzoom it's brilliant. I own the 28-60, 24-105 G and said Tamron, and from an end result perspective, I've never had to regret taking the 28-200 out instead of the G-lens. It really is that good. What little difference there is can either be mostly edited out and/or mostly only visible while pixel peeping. The 28-60 - OTOH - is nice and small, but optically a bit meh.

The Tamron 70-300 would give more reach, and it's cheap as chips as far as full frame lenses go, but would leave you hauling more lenses.

Good news here is that any of these lenses mentioned is perfectly capable of producing print-worthy images.
 
Thoughts on the the tamron 28-200 vs the 28-300?
Seems the 28-300 has lens stabilisation but is slightly slower. Also costs ~$400-600AUD more than the older 28-200
 
Unless you must have the speed, it'd be a good one lens solution. My only caution would be that you don't hear many talking about it, whereas almost everyone gives the 28-200 high marks. I'd search out plenty of image samples just to be sure.
 
Dustin is usually pretty objective. Maybe the reason for the 28-200 love is the speed, especially on the short end? Not sure how much the 2/3 of a stop matters at the long end, especially for the added 100. I'd be interested to know what aperture the 28-300 is at 200mm, might be no trade off at all.

Here's PetaPixel's review. To be honest, unless the extra 100 is important to you I'd stay with the 28-200.

 
Last edited:
FYI

I ended up getting the 28-200. It was cheaper than the 28-300. Offered more versatility than the 75-300mm so I wouldn't need to switch lenses as much.

Took it travelling and was great having the versatility of the superzoom. Would have been good if it were just a bit wider ~24mm, but I had the 16-35 f4 pz when I really needed to go wider. It's the largest lens I own and ironic that I ended up with it, as I have always preferred smaller and lighter systems.
 
Back
Top